fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
ITS-Tools.M compared to other tools («Known» models, ReachabilityFireability)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools.M do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents ITS-Tools.M' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

ITS-Tools.M versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for ITS-Tools, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M ITS-Tools Both tools   ITS-Tools.M ITS-Tools
All computed OK 31 93 423   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = ITS-Tools 148 Times tool wins 350 441
ITS-Tools.M > ITS-Tools 54   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < ITS-Tools 39 Times tool wins 221 570
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 92 31 177


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed less values than ITS-Tools, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools.M wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for LoLA, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools.M LoLA
All computed OK 6 237 366   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = LoLA 3 Times tool wins 436 499
ITS-Tools.M > LoLA 120   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < LoLA 200 Times tool wins 231 704
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 6 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 239 3 30


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed less values than LoLA, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools.M wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for Tapaal, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools.M Tapaal
All computed OK 0 237 432   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = Tapaal 3 Times tool wins 51 885
ITS-Tools.M > Tapaal 35   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < Tapaal 225 Times tool wins 149 787
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 236 0 33


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed less values than Tapaal, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools.M wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for enPAC, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M enPAC Both tools   ITS-Tools.M enPAC
All computed OK 694 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 694 0
ITS-Tools.M > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 694 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 695 269


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed more values than enPAC, denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed less values than enPAC, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools.M wins when points are below the diagonal, enPAC wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for GreatSPN, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools.M GreatSPN
All computed OK 373 22 299   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 480 237
ITS-Tools.M > GreatSPN 15   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < GreatSPN 8 Times tool wins 493 224
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 374 247


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed less values than GreatSPN, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools.M wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for 2018-Gold, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M 2018-Gold Both tools   ITS-Tools.M 2018-Gold
All computed OK 0 231 430   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = 2018-Gold 2 Times tool wins 52 878
ITS-Tools.M > 2018-Gold 38   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < 2018-Gold 225 Times tool wins 136 794
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 230 0 39


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed more values than 2018-Gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools.M computed less values than 2018-Gold, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

ITS-Tools.M wins when points are below the diagonal, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart